- Joined
- Apr 10, 2025
- Messages
- 29
IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF ALEXANDRIA
COURT VERDICT IN THE COUNTERSUIT FOR 'Plura72 v. Dearev, Case 3 (Mag. Ct., 2025)'
- Plaintiff did not make any statements regarding the countersuit.
II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
- The Defendant requests legal fees from the Plaintiff to reimburse the cost of procuring legal counsel.
- The Defendant asks for 30% of the case value (£300, from the £1,000 original case value times 30%) as their legal fee.
III. COURT OPINION
The Court will split the full court opinion on this countersuit into two sections, a court opinion on “Standard Legal Fees Percentages” (Sub-Section A), and court opinion on the legal fees requested in this case (Sub-Section B).
A. COURT OPINION ON “Standard Legal Fees Percentages”
Firstly, the Court would like to acknowledge that the Defendant’s legal counsel has promulgated the idea that 30% of a case value as a standard percentage to request for legal fees, and despite that this might be a good educated guess for the value of legal fees that may be provided, it is by far not a standard number that should be applied to all cases, but instead a more nuanced answer by factoring reasonable legal fees based on the value and complexity of the case (which will be explained in Sub-Section B of the Court Opinion) should be requested.
Firstly, the Court would like to acknowledge that the Defendant’s legal counsel has promulgated the idea that 30% of a case value as a standard percentage to request for legal fees, and despite that this might be a good educated guess for the value of legal fees that may be provided, it is by far not a standard number that should be applied to all cases, but instead a more nuanced answer by factoring reasonable legal fees based on the value and complexity of the case (which will be explained in Sub-Section B of the Court Opinion) should be requested.
B. COURT OPINION ON LEGAL FEES REQUESTED BY THE DEFENDANT
Moving on to the judgment of the provision of legal fees, the question of providing legal fees in a countersuit against the Plaintiff is a question with serious implications, and no doubt the first of its kind in the jurisdiction of the Alexandrian judiciary.
When looking at the provision of legal fees, the Court has to reasonably assume that the relief for legal fees awarded to the party that prevails in the case, will be directly and entirely used to compensate the respective legal counsel for their time and effort in representing their client.
Therefore, using the legal principle of "Reasonable and Proportionate Costs", the legal fees requested by the party that prevails in the case must be reasonable in amount and proportionate to the matters in question, taking into account the value of the claim, complexity of the case and litigation and any external factors that may have influenced the proceedings of the case.
Given the analysis above, the Court has three questions to answer in deciding the appropriate legal fee to be provided to the Defendant, namely:
1. Does the time used by the Defendant’s legal counsel justify the legal fees requested?
2. Does the effort shown by the legal counsel during the proceedings of the case justify the legal fees requested?
3. Does the complexity of the case and any other external factors during the case proceedings justify the legal fees requested?
The Court’s answers to these questions are given as follows:
1. Does the time used by the Defendant’s legal counsel justify the legal fees requested?
In the opinion of the Court, the legal fees (£300) that the Defendant has requested is reasonable for even a portion of the approximately eight days of work that the Defendant’s legal counsel has spent in crafting their inquiries, writs and objections, as well as the preparation to thoroughly understand the circumstances of the case.
2. Does the effort shown by the legal counsel during the proceedings of the case justify the legal fees requested?
In the opinion of the Court, the effort shown by the Defendant’s legal counsel, through their initiative and extensive communications through their proposed writs and objections reasonably justify the legal fees requested.
3. Does the complexity of the case and any other external factors during the case proceedings justify the legal fees requested?
In the opinion of the Court, the complexity of the case was unfortunately incredibly shallow and as stated in the Amicus Curiae Brief by Mr Dartanboy, uses arguments from the Alexandrian Criminal Code, which was not yet enacted during the time of the case filing, as well as directly invoking the Ex-Post Facto clause (§3.7 of the Alexandrian Criminal Code), thus the basis used by the Plaintiff in their claims is completely invalid, and therefore lacks any form of legal complexity for the Defendant’s legal counsel. Additionally, there were no other external factors that may have affected the time and effort of the Defendant’s legal counsel during the proceedings of the case. Therefore, the Court does not see enough justification for the legal fees requested in this factor.
Moving on to the judgment of the provision of legal fees, the question of providing legal fees in a countersuit against the Plaintiff is a question with serious implications, and no doubt the first of its kind in the jurisdiction of the Alexandrian judiciary.
When looking at the provision of legal fees, the Court has to reasonably assume that the relief for legal fees awarded to the party that prevails in the case, will be directly and entirely used to compensate the respective legal counsel for their time and effort in representing their client.
Therefore, using the legal principle of "Reasonable and Proportionate Costs", the legal fees requested by the party that prevails in the case must be reasonable in amount and proportionate to the matters in question, taking into account the value of the claim, complexity of the case and litigation and any external factors that may have influenced the proceedings of the case.
Given the analysis above, the Court has three questions to answer in deciding the appropriate legal fee to be provided to the Defendant, namely:
1. Does the time used by the Defendant’s legal counsel justify the legal fees requested?
2. Does the effort shown by the legal counsel during the proceedings of the case justify the legal fees requested?
3. Does the complexity of the case and any other external factors during the case proceedings justify the legal fees requested?
The Court’s answers to these questions are given as follows:
1. Does the time used by the Defendant’s legal counsel justify the legal fees requested?
In the opinion of the Court, the legal fees (£300) that the Defendant has requested is reasonable for even a portion of the approximately eight days of work that the Defendant’s legal counsel has spent in crafting their inquiries, writs and objections, as well as the preparation to thoroughly understand the circumstances of the case.
2. Does the effort shown by the legal counsel during the proceedings of the case justify the legal fees requested?
In the opinion of the Court, the effort shown by the Defendant’s legal counsel, through their initiative and extensive communications through their proposed writs and objections reasonably justify the legal fees requested.
3. Does the complexity of the case and any other external factors during the case proceedings justify the legal fees requested?
In the opinion of the Court, the complexity of the case was unfortunately incredibly shallow and as stated in the Amicus Curiae Brief by Mr Dartanboy, uses arguments from the Alexandrian Criminal Code, which was not yet enacted during the time of the case filing, as well as directly invoking the Ex-Post Facto clause (§3.7 of the Alexandrian Criminal Code), thus the basis used by the Plaintiff in their claims is completely invalid, and therefore lacks any form of legal complexity for the Defendant’s legal counsel. Additionally, there were no other external factors that may have affected the time and effort of the Defendant’s legal counsel during the proceedings of the case. Therefore, the Court does not see enough justification for the legal fees requested in this factor.
Accordingly, given that the elements of time and effort by the Defendant’s legal counsel has reasonably justified the amount of legal fees requested, and the factor that the complexity external factors of the case does not justify the legal fees requested, the Court will be ruling the countersuit in favour of the Defendant of the original case, however the Court will be granting a modified relief of £200 in legal fees, which is to be levied on the Plaintiff of the original case.
The Court thanks all parties involved.
Last edited:
